Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

A Few Late Words: Where’s Edwards? Flags. Calls.

We were going to try to keep this a bit on the short side, but we’ve got a lot we’d like to catch up on from the trail and beyond so … here goes.

First, a laugh with a message. Riffing off the media study earlier this week that shows John Edwards has not received a lot of media coverage, his campaign has put out a new video spoofing the seemingly endless duel between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama that has overshadowed his campaign. It’s part of his new Web site, Where’s John?

To the tune of “Dueling Banjos,” headlines that don’t mention him fly across the screen. They include our own, followed by CNN.com‘s “Clinton, Obama Battle for Upper Hand in Nevada,” the Boston Globe’s “Clinton, Obama Cast Their Feud Aside,” and, well, you get the picture.

It concludes with clips from — uh guess — Fox News — with a viewer response poll naming Mr. Edwards as the winner of Tuesday’s debate. Of all networks, it was Fox News’s in-house audience that through a show of hands thought Mr. Edwards turned in the most convincing performance in Las Vegas. That’s the same Fox that Mr. Edwards dissed back in March when he led the charge to boycott planned debates by the network.

We guess when it works for you, it works for you, right?

A New Pile-On Now, there’s no easy segue to the next segment. We couldn’t decide which candidate to move onto, but we figured since we were talking about Mr. Edwards, we’d shift to Mr. Obama, whose interview a few days ago in Reno — in which he admired Ronald Reagan over Bill Clinton for inspiring revolutionary change through optimism — has been rolling around the Web.

Senator Obama was wrong — frightfully so — in using Ronald Reagan as an example of voters reaching for change. The breadth of change Ronald Reagan brought was crippling for millions of Americans with the two worst recessions since the Depression, a complete disregard for the rights of American labor, and tax cuts that lined the pockets of the richest Americans at the expense of fiscal sanity and the well-being of the most vulnerable in our society.

Senator Obama may have been more interested in contrasting Reagan with Bill Clinton, but it shows particularly bad judgment to suggest this is the kind or even the breadth of change Americans want. Instead of lauding Ronald Reagan, Senator Obama would do better to remember that it was presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy who helped move this country forward.

Well, as others have mentioned, this takes Mr. Obama’s remarks a bit out of context. He wasn’t talking about the Reagan era, but the inspirational movement of Reagan. A little different, we’d hesitate to guess.

Over at the Huffington Post, a few former Reagan advisers weigh in with Sam Stein.

More Mea Culpas We’ve been awash in mea culpas lately. We may as well call this the throw-away apology year.

We’re not really sure why Chris Matthews has decided to address his critics now, after all these months of complaints about the way he talks about Senator Clinton. It can’t just be that Media Matters is after him again — he’s their frequent target. But he went into a lengthy, rambling monologue tonight promising to behave from now on, starting off by saying that some people “think I’ve been disrespectful to Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman.” Then, he said, “If my heart has not always controlled my words, on those occasions when I have not taken the time to say things right, or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I’ll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women — of all people — the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So, I get it.”

Thanks to Brian Stelter (our TV Decoder sib-blog) for alerting us to it before Media Matterscould drop its own word on the matter again into our e-mail. Its leader David Brock promises to keep Mr. Matthews’s feet to the fire. (uh, lips?)

While some people can’t stop talking, others … wait …

She Found Her Voice! Chelsea Clinton broke her code of silence today in Las Vegas at the end of one of her dad’s question-and-answer sessions. An audience member apologized to the former president for interrupting, then asked Ms. Clinton to comment on the election in general.

Ms. Clinton, 27, surprisingly took the mic, waved to the crowd and said, “Hi!” according to the Hotline’s blog On Call:

She said that one of the most notable aspects of the 2008 contest “so far is that young people are motivated to pay attention and hopefully motivated to participate.”

“Please caucus,” she urged. “Please vote. Participate. Be counted.”

Flags and the American Way Anytime a candidate mentions the Confederate flag in South Carolina, eyes and ears perk up. It’s one of those signs and signals we’ve all come to monitor cycle after cycle. Well, Mike Huckabee weighed in today, but put his own twist on the topic:

‘You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag,” Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, told supporters Thursday in Myrtle Beach.
”In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell ’em what to do with the pole, that’s what we’d do,” Huckabee said.

If we were moderating his comments, that one might be borderline.

Yesterday, it was a remark about putting squirrels in a popcorn popper while he was in college.

And on BeliefNet, he’s given an interview that won’t win him any points within lesbian and gay communities and some others — not that he’d scored many with those constituencies any way. In this case, he seems to be equating adult homosexual sex with pedophilia and bestiality.

Q: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Mr. Huckabee: “Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.”

Credit Where It’s Due Yes, we do still read TalkingPointsMemo even if we feel as though we’d been chastised 15 times in the last week by TPM or the Horse for not always running the longer version of a quote that meant the same thing either way you read it — and one for which a candidate’s campaign hadn’t complained at all.

Anyway, we did want to point out while we’re in the Huckabee mood that TPM Muckraker has a good read on automated telephone calls in South Carolina, a group called Common Sense that does a lot of them, and what the state’s attorney general, (who’s allied with rival John McCain), has to say about the practice.

A Ruffled Romney No, not his hair. You can tell people are a little weary when they get a little bit excited on the trail. Mitt Romney scolded and argued with Glen Johnson, a reporter for the Associated Press, who challenged the Republican candidate about assertions that he did not have lobbyists running his campaign. The reporter pushed his point a bit, Mr. Romney got a bit exercised and their dispute overtook Mr. Romney’s efforts to make the case that he could shake up Washington because he’s not beholden to anybody. Mike Allen at The Politico wrote about it, and here’s a video from CBS News. The most bizarre scold, however, comes from a Romney spokesman, telling Mr. Johnson — as you can see near the end of the video — “don’t be argumentative with the candidate.” a) the candidate? b) aren’t most reporters argumentative? it’s like in their J-genes, no?

Finally How many times can you say Friends Flip for Fred? Keep trying …

The new Edwards ad is correct – the media is obsessed with the Clinton v. Obama dichotomy. He was right to snub a Fox News debate, and is not contradicting that by referencing ordinary people (who chose him as the debate’s winner) who happened to appear on that network.

As far as the Obama thing goes – I think Obama has the right to applaud any one he wants to, but it does give me worry that he would ever do so for Ronald Reagan.

This is one of the best blogs ever ! I especially love, love, love the Edwards’ ad to the tune of “Dueling Banjos”. Thank you for the opportunity to post something about John Edwards on this classy
blog [ Kate and Ariel ].

I support Hillary but I’ve always liked John Edwards. He is the most unapologetic idealist I know. And the toughest. He will not go away. He needs no media – remember, he was a superb trial lawyer. He makes the case for himself.

I support Clinton, but this was a very good video by Edwards. It shows how bad the American democracy works and that this election is becoming a commercial event. Media doesn’t present voters what is important to know and debate, but what it can make the news and bring excitement. The result is the Obamamania that will destroy the Democrats, especially if McCain will win the Republican nomination.

Don’t get it, do you? It makes perfect sense that the Edwards campaign, having “dissed” Fox, as you put it, for its policies, might then use Fox broadcast footage to show how one of its stars patently ignores the reality of what’s before his eyes–a roomful of people persuaded by Edwards’ debate performance. It fits well with the whole point of the “where’s John” video.

As to the response to Obama’s Reagan paen: I hope that Obama didn’t mean to espouse the effects of Reagan’s policies, but it is unfortunate that he selected Reagan as an agent of “change,” when, as Edwards points out, there are Democrats to point to whose agency led to beneficial changes for the poor, the working class, for the economy as a whole. Given that Obama has parroted Republican talking points through much of this campaign, his referencing of Reagan, even for the purpose of highlighting the country’s readiness for an “optimistic communicator,” doesn’t allay my concerns about his trying to pander to conservatives.

The “Dueling Banjos” brings up bad memories of that creepy movie Deliverance. How ironic that Edwards is getting this blog coverage because the video is about Hillary and Obama. In fact, it seems that Edwards only gets media coverage when he talks about Hillary or Obama (today, it was him criticizing Obama for praising Reagan). While Edwards is not my first choice, it just doesn’t seem fair to ostracize him.

I was rather fond of Huckabee until he said he wanted to amend the Constitution to reflect God.

Re: Obama and Reagan – at what point during his comments did he “laud” Ronald Reagan or suggest that he had made positive changes. He was just saying that he was an agent of change, which is true. Reagan was a movement, one that is still talked about today. Now, Reagan was a move to the right, while Obama would be a move to the left. But disregarding any judgement as to whether it is change for the better or change for the worst, Reagan was the last president to represent a fundamental shift in American politics. That’s all Obama is saying.

When did Obama praise Reagan? He only said that Reagan came at a seminal moment in American history and represented a dramatic change, he said nothing about whether this was a good change or a bad change.

Mati – I think it’s pretty obvious that if anything is tearing the Democratic Party apart it’s the Clinton’s use of Rovian tactics. You’re being intellectually dishonest by saying it’s Obama when all he’s done is bring new people in the party. Then again, the Democrats have always been their own worst enemy.

Love Edwards by the way. If this were a twoperson batttle between Obama and Edwards, there’s no way America could lose.

Edwards is not getting much media attention due to his bogus claim for fighting lobbyist and fighting for the poor. Everyone knows while Edwards was in the senate he voted for the rich and against the poor. Edwards is a flip flopper and will say anything to get elected. When he did fight for the poor which was in a court room his pockets was the only thing that was smiling. The people of North Carolina knows the real John Edwards. John Edwards won’t even use one cent of his 53 million dollars to help his own campaign, instead he receives a big welfare check from the american people to run around the country and spread lies. It confuses me how John Edwards came in 3rd in New Hampshire and beleives he won. John Edwards spent 100 years in Iowa campaigning and still lost. He kind of remind me of George Bush, he just doesn’t know when to quit. His pride is probably cursing him out every time he has a rally. The commercial is stupid it talks about other candidates and rarely about himself. John Edwards campaign is like Litte Miss Sunshine, very cute but loses in the end.

Obama’s lauding of Reagan is not limited to his “optimism” as the NYT suggests, Obama’s campaign is running basically on the Reagan 1980 playbook. Accordingly, Obama can just spew optimistic, inspiring rhetoric without having any policy to back it up, just as Reagan did in 1980. Edwards is right on when he criticizes Obama for doing this. Obama would be a Reaganesque president in the sense that he will run a conservative administration (albeit much more moderate than Reagan) favoring monied interests and the status quo under the guise of optimism and empowering people. His avoidance of stating the hard truthes about the challenges we face clearly puts him in the same camp as Reagan, whereas Edwards is an actual progressive who would bring about substantive, not just rhetorical change, but is honest enough to tell us how hard it will be and what we must do. This election is too important to settle for gradual, minor and mostly rhetorical change–we need sweeping, immediate reform in politics and policy.

instead of belittling his efforts to he heard by the media (he’s got more money and a better ground game than Huckabee, for pete’s sake, yet he’s not a so-called “front runner”) – why don’t the two of you go back in your blog, and see how often you report on Edwards, as compared to Clinton and Obama.

The obvious one is that the headlines and commentary shown in the video dramatically illustrate how unfair the media’s coverage of Edwards has been. The coverage has been so unfair that the media has now become as much a part of the election story as the candidates themselves.

Another thing I like is that the debate footage at the end of the video shows that when voters actually get a chance to hear Edwards message they like it. The debate footage also demonstrates that even when voters tell the media that they prefer Edwards the talking heads and other media experts ignore those facts and revert back to their false Hillary vs. Obama narrative.

The final thing I like about the video is the fact that it’s hysterically funny. I think the media will have a real hard time continuing to portray Edwards as the “angry” candidate when this video very clearly shows that he’s not. After all angry candidates don’t have funny videos, they have angry videos.

Edwards’ strategy is right on target to cure what ails us. I’ve been an Edwards supporter for a while because of his intelligent yet populist message. He doesn’t talk as if the waters will divide before him. It’s obvious that his break from the senate was a good one that gave him time to reflect on what really needs to happen in this country. We’ve got a rare opportunity here to elect one of three very good candidates, but Edwards definitely tops my list.

# 10 A voter. Most people who are coming in the part “for Obama” are Republicans or Independents who have only one thought: to stop Clinton. They will leave “the party” in the general election. Not even all Democrats will vote Obama, so I am not sure the guy did such a big service to the party.

America needs a way back to economic prosperity. Why do you think poor and less educated people, who I assure you don’t have their voices on these blogs, vote for Clinton? Because these people have real and tough problems and they hope she can solve them. Instead, the ‘educated’ and more prosperous have the luxury to look for excitement, for novelty, for something to bring tears of ‘hope’ in their eyes. What about those who have tears every day because they struggle with their lives? Sorry, I would expect more social responsibility from the privileged Americans.

robert2,
You should read some policy pepers from the johnedwards.com site before you open your mouth. The very point of the video is that the MSM has not spent any time letting you know about real issues. They are myopically focused on two candidates and any sensational smears they can latch onto. If John Edwards had had 1/6th the coverage and 1/2 the corporate funding of the other two candidates, he may not have to try nearly as hard to get your vote. Research yourself and see the light.

I love the compendium of snippets from the trail. Thank you guys for busting your chops out there, and for serving up this super-yummy “trail mix.” It is much appreciated.

The Edwards ad would have been more funny or credible if he did not ‘pile on’ every chance he got. He was relentless and caustic in his tirades against Clinton. Now he has Obama as his ‘pile on’ object. I suspect he (Edwards) will not stay on much longer in the race.

Chris Matthews had an epiphany? Really? He is an incurable Hillary hater, and the only thing worse than a misogynist is a blathering, slobbering right-wing misogynist.

I am a long time Democrat supporter. I supported HRC because she is tough, pragmatic, experienced, hardworking and can make compromise to move the priorities forward. HRC (and Bill) is also loved around the world. Edwards’ stance is going nowhere in the Congress if he’s elected. Call me skeptical but I do think Obama is frightening given his shallow experience and all he plays is rhetoric. He may be able to bring new air to DC but that may not last and his inexperience to deal with myriad of national security issues. However, I became more disenchanted with HRC keep emphasise over and over about her 35 yrs experience. Whilst that is true to a large extent it didn’t play well to many and certainly not me. Now I am seriously looking at the Republican and it came to me McCain is the most honorable among all the pack Dem or Rep. Rudy is tough as HRC and can get things moving too. On the independent side Bloomberg is terrific. So my preference now in precedence is 1. Bloomberg if he runs 2. McCain 3. HRC or Rudy. However, if HRC will stop nagging about her 35 yrs expericence she will still get my top preference. It’s a pyschology thing. I like her qualifications but I just cant stand her nagging.

Robert 2….what did you do, try to use every attack phrase and lie that you could find and throw it all together…..like a NeoCon Goulash?

Edwards record and walk matches his talk INDEED. And, even though Obama jumped on a new campaign theme to not accept Lobbyist/Pac money for his presidential campaign, it sure didn’t stop him in all his other campaigns. AND STILL he has received over 76K from Lobbyists to date on his presidential run. ….And more so, OBAMA HAS LOBBYISTS RUNNING HIS CAMPAIGNS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NEVADa.

And facts are much more illuminating than fiction, would you say? Edwards has not taken money from Lobbyists or Pacs HIS ENTIRE TIME…INCLUDING WHEN HE FIRST ARRIVED IN THE SENATE 10 years ago.

Isn’t it like a NeoCon to whine that a Democrat doesn’t use their own money for a campaign, when a Republican won’t even work on a campaign unless they get paid.

…I know, the truth stings some times. But it’s better for you to deal in the Real world, you learn.

“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”-Barack Obama

Only problem is, we remember the horrible Trick Down Economics and the start of the project for the NeoCons, and the decline that has lead us here.

AND, the TRUTH and REALITY is not because of excesses from decades before, PLEASE, and was not for a goodie goodie messaage, but one of FEAR and Threats with Cold War, Middle East, Gas wars, And Iran Hostages. Now surely Senator Obama has a bit better memory than he is showing. And should not stoop to such low levels for political gain.

I would think Edwards doesn’t use his own money to fund his campaign because he doesn’t want to equate personal wealth with the ability to obtain public office. Similar to his not taking special interest and corporate donations, as he does not want to equate cosiness with corporate interest with ability to gain public office.

And I agree, his message does seem more populist now than it was when he was in the Senate. Yet I would point out, the middle class is in fact being pinched at levels far greater now (after eight years of President Bush) than it was in the past.

And take a look at Clinton’s stance on Spitzer’s immigration policy if you want to find true “flip-flopping.” Or the use of political triangulation on nearly every single issue – the very essence of trying to have it both ways. (The Clintons invented it.)

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…